| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 78 |
| Hearing date | 17 May 2011 |
| Determination date | 02 June 2011 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | D Beck ; P Shaw |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Ede v Gun City Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Applicant claimed dismissal for redundancy substantively and procedurally unjustified - Applicant called to meeting with respondent’s managing director (“T”) – Applicant informed position to be made redundant – Dispute between parties as to exactly what T told applicant about situation – Authority found difficult to determine which version better reflected what happened as both parties reliable witnesses – T offered applicant casual weekend work – Applicant declined offer – T told applicant was position at competitor’s store and offered to give applicant introduction – Several days later applicant declined offer of introduction – Applicant finished work same day informed of redundancy and was paid in lieu of notice - Authority accepted appeared to be genuine need for redundancy – However, found respondent breached duty of good faith in failing to properly consult with applicant – Found T had been considering redundancy for at least a month before spoke to applicant – Found consultation with applicant should probably have commenced soon after T first began to think about possibility of redundancy – Found should have been discussion about what work applicant performing and time required for tasks – Found should have been consideration of whether applicant’s role could have been modified so as to avoid redundancy – Found instead T delivered decision applicant’s employment at an end and did not have open mind to other possibilities - Found fair and reasonable employer would not have breached statutory obligations - Dismissal unjustified - Remedies – No contributory conduct - Found was genuine redundancy situation – Found evidence indicated applicant would have been made redundant following proper consultation – Found applicant probably would not have suffered any loss of income if had pursued option to work for competitor - No award for lost remuneration – Applicant claimed completely devastated by dismissal as thought doing good job, never been warned and was long serving staff member – Applicant affected by mood swings and sleeplessness – $10,000 compensation appropriate - Floor Manager |
| Result | Application granted ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($10,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s4(1A);ERA s4(1A)(b);ERA s4(1A)(c);ERA s4(4)(e);ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Cammish v Parliamentary Service [1996] 1 ERNZ 404 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_78.pdf [pdf 28 KB] |